Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom

International law and the Constitution
In the first paragraph of the lead section, the "upholding of international law" is mentioned as a constitutional principle. The case of R v Lyons (UKHL 44 [2002 ]) is mentioned to support that. That is a misundertanding of the judgement, and can lead to a wrong conclusion on the part ofd the reader of the wiki article. While it is true that the opinions expressed by the Lords in the said judgement assert that british common law is to be interpreted in accordance with international law, it is equally true that international law is not part of UK law.

The UK has what is called a "transformation" system of reception of international norms (as opposed to States which have a direct reception system). This means that an international treaty can only become part of domestic law via an Act of Parliament (see wiki page on international legal dualis m).

Furthermore, judges can only use international law to interpret UK law if and when "free to do so" (Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990 1 AC 109 ], 283). This means that they cannot do so in direct contravention of the will of Parliament, as that would be a violation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This is precisely the reasoning that is followed in R v Lyons. For instance, Lord Hermann states that "In domestic law, the courts are obliged to give effect to the law as enacted by Parliament. This obligation is entirely unaffected by international law." (para. 40). Lord Millett said that European Court of Human Rights judgements "ha[ve] not been incorporated into our domestic law so as to be directly enforceable by individuals [...] while a judgment of the ECtHR is binding on the United Kingdom, it is not directly binding as a matter of our domestic law on the courts" (paras. 104-105).

I suggest the last sentence of the leading paragraph should reflect Lord Millett's position on the principles of the UK Constitution "the governing principles are the separation of powers, the supremacy of Parliament, and the independence of the judiciary". I also suggest the "internationalism" subsection should be amended to reflect the above. 139.47.42.191 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Military power of Parliament??
The present text of the article states that "While Parliament had nearly uncontested military power before..." I don't even understand what this means. Parliament, as such, has not had any military power since the English Civil War, and even then it was hardly 'uncontested'. I assume that the word 'military' has crept in by mistake, but I can't think what it was meant to be.2A00:23C5:6492:8D01:E888:73F3:7B76:A0AD (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)